Star Trek... the Next Thread

24

Comments

  • edited February 2012
    Yes, I did read the article.

    First, he's not an art critic, so his opinion as a professional film critic does not qualify. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as a high profile critic, his opinion about things is given greater consideration. With that in mind, his position should be delivered with greater care and consideration than to appear as a rant about the worthlessness of video games.

    Second, art does not have an absolute, quantifiable definition as to what is and is not art, so the whole argument against the product of a given medium being art is moot and unnecessary.

    Third, he has little to no experience actually interacting with recent products of said medium in the method by which they were designed to be experienced (ie. played, not watched), nor has he spent a significant amount time watching recent video games either (again despite it being insufficient anyway), so his opinions should be considered inconclusive at best.

    Fourth, any person willing to engage in legitimate debate should be open to opposing view, and given new evidence ought to be willing to adjust their opinion accordingly. He was not willing to do either of these things.

    So, there was no point to his bringing it up; he doesn't have properly sufficient data with which to back up what he says; he doesn't accept any additional data; and he belittles opposing view. Sounds like trolling to me.
  • edited February 2012
    I defer to Brian Moriarty's thoughts on the matter. Brian Moriarty is a designer of games which are quite possibly the closest examples of art(specifically, GOOD art) that I could possibly conceive of, Trinity and Loom. He is brilliant. Like, fucking brilliant. Like, I would listen to this guy talk for hours. He *does* know games, he *does* know art, and(unlike you) he *does* know Roger Ebert and *his* work.
  • edited February 2012
    Ebert's last word on games as art was something like "You know, I never should have said anything. Never mind." He admitted he couldn't come up with a definition of the word "art" that would exclude games and include everything else he thinks of as art, so he backed off. I thought that was reasonably mature so I stopped feeling the need to bag on him about it. That and the fact that his jaw cancer situation makes it no fun to envision arguing with him any more.

    I do think it's a shame that he doesn't have the interest or the patience to play some games, since he definitely enjoyed Dark City (enough to record an audio commentary track for the DVD) and Dark City is basically the movie version of what it feels like to experience a video game properly. I think he definitely has the capacity to enjoy a game, but if he doesn't want to then that's his business.

    Anyway I thought Star Trek 2009 was good enough that it made me interested in watching more of the various series, so it can't be all bad. I thought the time-travel-reboot model was a pretty clever way to go about it.
  • edited February 2012
    I defer to Brian Moriarty's thoughts on the matter.

    Okay, with his position I am compelled to agree.

    Brian does cite some back and forth that Ebert had in the end (in which Ebert basically admits he never should have brought it up) that I admittedly wasn't aware of... probably because the conversation had become tired (read: "tl;dr") by then.



    back to what started the whole Ebert convo:
    BagginsKQ wrote: »
    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."-Roger Ebert
    I disagree both with this opinion and the attitude behind it. Star Trek 09 is a good movie. Certainly, it has a different tone and shooting style than TOS did, but that neither makes it bad, a "popcorn movie," nor unworthy of inclusion as part of the world Roddenberry created.
  • edited February 2012
    Also, Star Trek has been reduced to loud and colourful action before Star Trek 09 came along.
  • edited February 2012
    Trinity


    Holy Hell I love that game.
  • edited February 2012
    Also, Star Trek has been reduced to loud and colourful action before Star Trek 09 came along.

    The Original Series is, in fact, my least liked Star Trek series. It seems to me like there are quite a lot of TOS episodes that use any one of the same 4 or 5 basic plots; hammy overacting abounds; and the only real characters with a reasonable amount of depth (and screen time) are Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Couple these problems with the issue that the effects and tech haven't aged well either.

    All of the other series are very good, each in their own way, but TOS just doesn't hold up well for me at all. Therefore, despite TNG being very good, the opinion that more recent Trek films and shows are ruining Roddenberry's original vision doesn't fit properly into my view.

    In contrast, I find that the Kirk movies are generally better than the TNG movies: Generations has too much emotion-chip humor and Picard uncharacteristically broods; First Contact is too dark and action-oriented; and Insurrection is forgettable (though of those three, First Contact is probably the best.)
  • edited February 2012
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    The Original Series is, in fact, my least liked Star Trek series. It seems to me like there are quite a lot of TOS episodes that use any one of the same 4 or 5 basic plots; hammy overacting abounds; and the only real characters with a reasonable amount of depth (and screen time) are Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Couple these problems with the issue that the effects and tech haven't aged well either.

    All of the other series are very good, each in their own way, but TOS just doesn't hold up well for me at all. Therefore, despite TNG being very good, the opinion that more recent Trek films and shows are ruining Roddenberry's original vision doesn't fit properly into my view.

    In contrast, I find that the Kirk movies are generally better than the TNG movies: Generations has too much emotion-chip humor and Picard uncharacteristically broods; First Contact is too dark and action-oriented; and Insurrection is forgettable (though of those three, First Contact is probably the best.)

    Would you say you're a bigger fan of science fiction or space opera?
  • edited February 2012
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    In contrast, I find that the Kirk movies are generally better than the TNG movies: Generations has too much emotion-chip humor and Picard uncharacteristically broods; First Contact is too dark and action-oriented; and Insurrection is forgettable (though of those three, First Contact is probably the best.)

    That's true. Nemesis was my favourite TNG movie. The cast even said (at least one of them) that they recognized their characters more in this movie than the others.
  • edited February 2012
    None of the Trek films other than 2-4 ever hapenned.
  • edited February 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Would you say you're a bigger fan of science fiction or space opera?

    Now, that's a curious question.

    I do like various science fiction movies. However, until I very recently started watching through Stargate SG-1 on Netflix, I would have said that I could only ever get into sci-fi TV series that were Star Trek. [ie. My mom likes Dr. Who, but I've only seen a handful of episodes from both the old and new format; I started watching the first 10 or so episodes of the new BSG show, but stopped; and I've only seen half a dozen or less Babylon 5 episodes. I did like Sliders when it aired, but not enough to actively pursue watching it (though I have since seen the entire series and do not approve of episodes after Jerry O'Connell left the show.)]

    Of the Star Wars Saga, the original Original Trilogy is what I greatly prefer and pretty much only care about at this point, albeit taking exception for good fan edits.

    I have read various Star Trek and Star Wars books, but I find that I'm only drawn to certain authors such as Peter David and Drew Karpyshyn.

    I don't know about the sci-fi vs. space opera genres as a whole, but I would say that in general I like the Star Wars OOT; the Kirk movies (except 5), Nemesis, and Star Trek 09; and all Trek shows (except TOS and TAS). Any of these, were they on television in a circumstance of my surfing channels, I would stop and watch them regardless of how many times I'd seen them or whatever else was on at the time.

    I will add however, that the first 2 TNG movies and SW:ROTS are still watchable, and I might find enjoyment when I watch them again. Also, of Dr. Who, I do recall the (full multi-part) episodes leading up to and following the death of Tom Baker's Doctor, and "The Five Doctors" rather fondly.


    tl;dr version: I like the Star Wars OOT, and Trek 2, 4, 6 and 2009 best of all sci-fi movies, and I care little for any sci-fi TV show that isn't Star Trek. Take from that what you will.


    EDIT: oh, I almost forgot. I agree that George Lucas has no idea how to write or direct a good movie anymore, and I disagree with the notion that Rick Berman has held the Star Trek universe back, though I do think he ruined the Enterprise series finale (which I will never ever watch again, and regret having seen in the first place.)
  • edited February 2012
    dooble pawst (it's been almost 8 hours)

    Have any of you gone to a Trek convention of some kind?

    I have not. I've also used having never been to one nor dressed in a Trek costume as evidence that I'm a fan of the franchise and not a "Trekkie."
  • edited February 2012
    I've never been to a convention. Don't have those up here in Canada or at least not many so I'm always too far away. I have owned a TNG uniform in the past. I went as a captain on Halloween once. My brother was my first officer. Had the phaser, tricorder, and communicator toys to boot. That was great.

    And just as a little note, SG-1 gets exponentially better as it goes on. Especially around the 4th/5th seasons. Starts to wane again around 9 and 10 but not as bad as the first season, in my opinion. The beginning is nothing really special, but does start on a very fantastic universe.
  • edited February 2012
    Netflix says my SG-1 viewing has as yet reached s3e11.
  • edited February 2012
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    Have any of you gone to a Trek convention of some kind?
    I've gone to a "general geek convention" at which Patrick Stewart, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy(and other Trek stars) were guests.
  • edited February 2012
    There was a Comic Con in my city a few months ago. I sadly could not attend. But apparently Leonard Nimoy was there. And there was another event shortly after where Shatner came. That one was freaking expensive, though.
  • edited February 2012
    Well...I...uh...I went to the Rose Parade and mere blocks away, George Takei was watching THE SAME PARADE!

    ...Yeah, I got nothing.
  • edited February 2012
    I went to a convention and heard Shatner speak once, a long time ago. Also got to meet David Prowse.
  • edited July 2012
    Watched Star Trek (2009) again. I love how they treat/explore the characters in ways hinted at by the Prime universe but were never originally talked about.

    Vulcans in the Prime universe, including Spock, generally have a low opinion of humans and other species who show emotion. However, Spock still joined Starfleet (which is dominated by humans) instead of the Vulcan Science Academy: In The Voyage Home, Sarek says "As I recall, I opposed your enlistment in Starfleet. However, it is possible that judgement was incorrect; your associates are people of good character."

    In TOS, Spock played his lute for Uhura in the rec room; and she more than once made romantic advances toward him, even while on the bridge.


    In Wrath of Kahn, Kirk says he "got a commendation for original thinking" after cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test, and I love how 2009 implies that it was a bald-faced lie, since it would make more sense to get in trouble for cheating instead of rewarded for it.
  • edited July 2012
    Star Trek fans have little right to protest the direction of the new movie. There weren't enough fans watching the show, thus canceled. There were enough fans watching the movies. Bloody hell the movies were still living off the TNG series and it was getting sad. Ratings had been in decline over three series. The new Stat Trek made people excited about Star Trek. Yeah, it wasn't written specifically for the fans, and it was a better movie for it.
  • edited July 2012
    If you came at the movie as a die-hard Star Trek fan, it came across as too generic.
    If you came at the movie as a newcomer, it came across as too nerdy.
    If you came at the movie wanting two hours of space-themed fun, YOU WON.
  • edited July 2012
    If you came at the movie as a die-hard Star Trek fan, it came across as too generic.
    But I am a die-hard Trek fan. I'm a fan of the shows (all but TOS), and all the even numbered movies (plus Star Trek 3) and the reboot. In fact, I'd seen the reboot at least 4 times while it was still in the theater; and if any episode (besides TOS or the ENT finale) were on TV when I was surfing channels, I'd stop and watch it.

    When I watch the reboot, I watch it as a fan who feels he knows these characters. As a result, the story is made all the more fun when we get to see how the characters play off each other in their own characteristic ways, and especially, as I noted earlier, when aspects of these characters are explored more in depth in ways that totally make sense, and yet give me the feeling of "I hadn't thought about it that way before."


    In fact, now that you mention it, I find The Original Series to be too generic, which is mainly why I don't like it. Sure, it was good for its time, but many of the episodes' plots are loose copies of each other.


    I don't bring my fandom into real life (ie. Trekkie), but I love Trek for the stories and most of all for the characters and their relationships with each other.

    This is why I don't understand the hate for Enterprise. To watch Malcolm Reed and how his need for military order clashes with the other crew members; T'Pol dealing with emotion (others' and her own) and her growing relationship with Trip; Hoshi's fears that come from exploring the unknown; and Phlox's crazy alien medical ideas. The character relationships gets you invested in what happens to them and further interested in the overall story.


    I'm thinking that the reason why many people complain about Trek is because people like to complain; not because there's actually anything wrong with the shows or the reboot.
  • edited July 2012
    That's weird, that last post has everything that I would have said in it. I have to admit though I doubt I could have said it that well.
  • edited July 2012
    I am a die-hard Trekkie, as are a few of my friends, and we all loved the movie. In fact, the only people I know that didn't like the reboot are all on the internet.
  • edited July 2012
    I just started watching The Cage/The Menagerie for the first time.

    589946c2404b422dfa117154932063320a7b2992.PNG

    I really really like it. I like Pike, I like his crew, and I like the story. I think it gets too much criticism. Sure, Spock is different, and Pike's crew is a prototype for Kirk's, but I still like it. It has some really good dialogue.

    I wish Obsidian would do a ST RPG.
  • edited July 2012
    The problem with The Cage doesn't have to do with the episode itself, but more that, if you watch it first, before The Menagerie, then the latter feels artificially made into a 2-parter.

    Granted, that's basically what it really is, but it's more obvious what's been done.
  • edited July 2012
    I watched the version narrated before and after by Gene Roddenberry that switches randomly from black and white to color. Dunno if that's the only version or not.
  • edited July 2012
    I seem to recall there was a version that had the whole episode in colour. Might be on the Blu-Ray.
  • edited August 2012
    I seem to recall there was a version [of The Cage] that had the whole episode in colour. Might be on the Blu-Ray.


    jmK7G.png
  • edited August 2012
    It's also on the last disk of the third season of the remastered original series.

    Why the third season? Beats me.
  • edited August 2012
    It's also on the last disk of the third season of the remastered original series.
    THAT'S where I got it from. I just downloaded a rip of it. [/SlappedWrist]
  • edited August 2012
    Why do people complain that the reboot's bridge looks like an Apple Store?

    TOS's bridge has stark colors with hard lines and sharp corners; TNG's bridge is open, slopes up in the back with a wooden wing-like shape in the middle and makes liberal use of neutral earth-tone colors; Enterprise-C's and B's bridges are near carbon copies of the Excelsior's; and the NX-01's bridge is covered in sheet metal with stairs, blue flooring and modern day flat screen monitors (albeit touch-screen).

    Seriously, people do complain way too fricken much.
  • edited August 2012
    It's the number one multinational human pastime.
  • edited August 2012
    My favorite is people griping about how the Enterprise shouldn't look different. Yes, it should. The Kelvin might not have been the state-of-Starfleet-art, but it wasn't incapable of defending itself, and the Narada smashed it to pieces easily. That would make the Starfleet Corps of Engineers scrap the current plans for the Constitution-class starship and make her bigger and more powerful. Make the saucer, arguably the least vulnerable part of the ship, a bigger target, slim down the engineering section, beef up the dorsal neck, reduce the ship's over-all profile in many directions to present less of a target, and outfit her with more weapons. Not that hard to imagine.

    I also didn't have a problem with "Bud-gineering" until I saw what they could've done if they'd had the budget for a set. I think and hope that they at least disguise the place a little more in the sequel.
  • edited November 2012
    Bumping this. Good news everyone! If you're going to see The Hobbit on December 14th, you'll be getting a first look at Star Trek Into Darkness! Now, this first look depends. If you see it in a regular theater, you'll be seeing the first theatrical trailer(not teaser). If you go see it in IMAX 3D, odds are in your favor you'll be seeing the FIRST NINE MINUTES of the movie. SPECULATION COMMENCE!
  • edited November 2012
    My favorite is people griping about how the Enterprise shouldn't look different. Yes, it should. The Kelvin might not have been the state-of-Starfleet-art, but it wasn't incapable of defending itself, and the Narada smashed it to pieces easily. That would make the Starfleet Corps of Engineers scrap the current plans for the Constitution-class starship and make her bigger and more powerful.

    It was also launched later than the original, I think. I seem to recall reading a novel where Jim Kirk is aboard the maiden voyage or shakedown flight of the Enterprise with his father and Robert April, and he's somewhat younger.

    (Poor old Robert April, no place for him in the new timeline).
  • edited November 2012
    It was also launched later than the original, I think. I seem to recall reading a novel where Jim Kirk is aboard the maiden voyage or shakedown flight of the Enterprise with his father and Robert April, and he's somewhat younger.

    (Poor old Robert April, no place for him in the new timeline).

    According to computer screens created for Star Trek Enterprise's episode "In a Mirror Darkly", the Enterprise originally launched in 2245, while the new movie Enterprise launched in 2258, a difference of 13 years. This also would explain Pike's age and the fact that Spock was still hanging around Starfleet Academy berating Jim Kirk for beating the Kobayashi Maru. Given the threat that the Narada posed, Starfleet probably scrapped the initial trials of the Constitution-class and had the designers take it back to the drawing board. Because of this, the ship was bigger and far better equipped to deal with the dangers that awaited, though not equipped quite enough. Considering it can take quite some time for something to go from blueprints to actual construction, I'm sure the redesign of the entire ship was a major setback to the launch cycle of the Constitution-class.

    As for Robert April, there's plenty of place for him in the new timeline. Just not as captain of the Enterprise.
  • edited May 2013
    Next Generation is the best. Especially towards the end after the characters have been well established and they start doing really intense character arcs.

    Those writers made me cry in an episode dealing with the tragedies of two characters who I thought were boring. It was like the later seasons of M*A*S*H in that way.
  • edited May 2013
    Which characters?

    My favorite characters were Data and Q. Though, in both cases it likely is because of how the other characters react to them. It should also go without saying that Picard is my favorite Trek captain.


    DS9 is very good, but Sir Patrick Stewart is a better actor than Avery Brooks. TOS is too unoriginal with its plotlines, as many episodes are similar to each other; as well there is too much overacting.

    The original Original Star Wars Trilogy is a classic. Even with the cuteness of the Ewoks and the slapstick nature of Boba Fett's death, it is the quintessential space fantasy.
  • edited May 2013
    It was the episode with Deanna and Lwaxana in the last season. I never really cared for either of them, but that episode... man. I came out viewing both in a completely different light.

    And Data is the best character in TNG. That's just how it is.

    Actually, when I was a kid I was in a musical version of Midsummer Night's Dream directed by John de Lancie. So, yup. I met him. Sang in the choir, and had a very minor speaking role. This is my claim to fame.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.